Within too many conversations as an AM service provider, we are attacked with the opening gambit:
“AM is too expensive.”
Let’s break that down. Firstly — compared to what? Mass-produced castings? International supply chains?
Secondly, how is that possible if we design appropriately for the manufacturing process? If we maximise the technological benefit, the value will outweigh the cost.
Cost. What a great word. We are obsessed with the pounds-and-pennies part of cost. But what about value? The cost of not doing something? The cost of development or operational qualification?
Understanding Value
In a previous conversation with a large company questioning AM cost, I asked: What did you pay, and what did you get? Their answer highlighted two areas that are critical to share and move beyond if AM is to grow.
AM service providers often charge a premium simply because they can deliver what’s asked. But in what world is a premium added just because something can be done?
A premium should only be added when knowledge and capability enable something others can’t do.
An AM service provider might make a forging replacement on a powder-bed machine and charge five times the cost of a machined part. Why? Because they could.
A Reality Check for Customers
Customers, understand this: You didn’t pay tens of thousands of dollars for a part. Stop comparing the project cost to the bill of materials for a standard part.
You’re paying for tens of thousands of dollars of non-recurring cost (NRC) to qualify a machine and setup — accessing decades of experience.
You’re killing the AM case you’re fighting for. You must be smarter when looking at what you order.
A Reality Check for Service Providers
AM service providers — YOU ARE KILLING YOUR OWN FUTURE. WAKE UP!
So, is AM too expensive? No.
Is it more expensive than alternative technology? It depends. If a part can be easily machined, then why are we even using AM? If it’s for the learning and long-term benefits, then please cost the programme of work appropriately for the value.
Is AM treated as a constant one- or two-off? Almost always.
Is AM agile and flexible? Not particularly.
Is it treated as that by customers? Yes.
Do those same customers therefore pay for prototype-based iteration, material changes, and engineering time for a constant FAI? Yes!
Breaking the Cycle
It shouldn’t be as challenging as it continues to be. Here’s what I propose:
Customers
Acknowledge the cost of knowledge.If you don’t need expertise, then why are you asking for it?
Be serious about the long-term opportunity.Break your costs down into NRC and RC.Don’t pay the NRC every time. Be smart.
Be honest about your needs.What do you need the part to be? Let the experts provide it.That’s always more cost-effective than unnecessary requirements
Service Providers
Stop charging every job as the last supper.Invest in knowledge and capability so you can provide exceptional levels of output.Stop blaming the machine OEM when you provide bad parts — acknowledge it’s not easy.
Help your customer.Understand their system and stop overcharging.It does not cost you $15k per part.If you need $15k per part to keep the lights on, seek help — that’s not sustainable.
Remember, you are not special.When you get it right, you are boring.
Boring is great.
Boring means you’ve mastered your art.
Special means you haven’t.
